Stefan 93 wrote:I felt like I was in biology class...
Without loosing time to theory of evolution, the difference would be much lesser if we would live in normal natural conditions. I know that many of us are narcissistic, but think about this. You know what was the average IQ in Ancient Rome? 140. It probably isn't that accurate, but you can reduce it by 20 (which is really big) and you'll still be better than today. That happened with every possible gene, because we now can survive no metter what. And after 6000 years (because that's how long we are here, don't you read that books, oh what it's name, yes Bible?) you can imagine what is the difference.
And, of course, if somebody would devote it's whole life to just working-out like animals he would be strong like some olympic lifter.
I guess that would decrease the difference from 2x to 1,5x max or maybe even 1,33x...

Wow, you might be the most incredibly stupid, and breathtakingly gullible person I have ever met. That's saying a lot. I talk to drooling dumb asses on youtube all the time. Or you could be a really crappy troll.

There is no way to determine the IQ of people who lived prior to IQ tests. There is evidence for evolution, and none for creationism. There is also no evidence that any gods exist. I've read the bible cover to cover. Interesting book, but still a load of rubbish. I've also read "The Hobbit", but I don't believe in dragons, invisibility rings, or hobbits for that matter.

Jungledoc wrote:Roman's IQ was CVL. They weren't even smart enough to know that "140" means! They had to take the Sanfordius-Benetius test, and we all know how hard that was.

Of course you have to take into account the lead intake from their pottery. They might have been CL without that.

That's an improper way of saying 145, which should be CXLV, and just CXL being 140. You never put V, L or D before another letter. It only works like this:
IV=4
IX=9
XL=40
XC=90
CD=400
CM=900
MMMCMXCIX, which is 3999, is probably the highest proper Roman numeral. I'm pretty sure, but not entirely. It definitely is provided there is no 5000 or 10000, which I am pretty sure there isn't.

1. Good logical lesson on the Roman numerals.
2. Would it be so hard to not attack religion with such a vigor when the chance arises? Some of us more gullible types actually belive in much/all of what the Bible teaches. I know you were responding to whatshisname.

To be fair to Ironman, Stefan did mention we are 6000 years old according to the Bible, so it wouldn't be a little off topic to attack that statement, but I don't think Stefan was being serious, and it's a little unnecessary to call him incredibly stupid.

Ironman wrote:Wow, you might be the most incredibly stupid, and breathtakingly gullible person I have ever met. That's saying a lot. I talk to drooling dumb asses on youtube all the time. Or you could be a really crappy troll.

That's pretty harsh. If someone else were saying those things, you'd lock down the thread and warn them to desist or face banishment!

Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan

Oscar_Actuary wrote:1. Good logical lesson on the Roman numerals.
2. Would it be so hard to not attack religion with such a vigor when the chance arises? Some of us more gullible types actually belive in much/all of what the Bible teaches. I know you were responding to whatshisname.

That was hardly an attack. He's the one that brought god/the bible into it. If someone talks about religion I don't say anything about it. However if they bring it into a discussion I am having that is a whole other thing. I handle religion more gently than any other topic, and more gently than any of you handle other topics as well. Your feelings of reverence make it no less of a double standard. He's gullible for a lot of reasons by the way......

Ironman wrote:Wow, you might be the most incredibly stupid, and breathtakingly gullible person I have ever met. That's saying a lot. I talk to drooling dumb asses on youtube all the time. Or you could be a really crappy troll.

That's pretty harsh. If someone else were saying those things, you'd lock down the thread and warn them to desist or face banishment!

Not if they said it about someone who has rang up the massive number of stupid posts that this guy has. Just go through his posts. I mean look at all the crap he says. This post is just the latest example. I seem to remember other things he said that rival believing the earth is 6000 years old in their demonstrable falsity.

There is a milk thread that springs to mind.

He's probably a troll anyway. I present as evidence the difficult to believe depth of stupidity, as well as the results obtained in this thread, as well as a couple others.

Ironman wrote:I handle religion more gently than any other topic, and more gently than any of you handle other topics as well.

Even if I tilt my heads enough to belive this, I'm not sure as a mod that this is the standard you want to go with.

also, I'm certain you will out vocabulary me and never be wrong.

Are you mistaking what I said about him as being about religion? All I said specifically about religion is there is no evidence for gods. There might be slightly better words than "rubbish" for describing the bible, "nonsense", and "bull$h1t" probably aren't any better. That view is pretty much synonymous with not being a Christian. So that's fairly gentle. Anything I've said at other times that is at all harsh, is also true, and at the same time, there's no real nice way to express any of those points.

If you thought I meant he was stupid and gullible because he believes in a religion, I assure you that's not what I meant. That was more to do with the creationism comment along with 100 other stupid posts, threads in which you yourself laid into him pretty good if I remember.

You were talking about people attacking religion when someone mentioned how they don't like Jerry Fallwell or creationism. That's not even attacking religion. So it seems like you are pretty sensitive to it.

If you notice, I don't say anything when people are just talking about it. It's only situations like this where I say something. Religion is a lot like a penis that way. I don't care if I see you waving it about. I only have something to say about it if you're waving it in my face.

I'm going against my better judgement and chiming in. I typically avoid expressing my views on religion. I come from an interesting back ground where it was never forced upon me but, as bizarre as it sounds, half of my family are strict-ish Catholics (long story how "half" of them are). A couple of close friends are religious, too.

Normally i'm happy keeping my mouth shut and I have been (other than this thread). However, what does rile me just a little is really what's happening here,

If I were to just come out and say I just plainly don't believe any religion and live life by own moral values and "belief system", I would deeply offend them (even though they are aware of this). It would basically be World War 3. Yet, they can say to me, "God is with her", "God is by her side". This actually deeply offends me (only recently, really) but somehow it's ok for them to say it but I could never say the opposite or what i really think.

I think to an extent that's what's going on here. Recently i've felt like, as Ironman so eloquently put, i've had a penis waved in my face.

I hate to get directly involved and actually, I think the whole debate about whether it's true to not is pointless (although it is at times entertaining) and probably misses the point for most believers. However I think it's worth considering that in the same way a believer can get offended by seemingly insensitive remarks by a non-believer, the opposite can occur, particular when a statement is made that only a believer could see sense in (sometimes or even often at the expense of logic).

KPj wrote:If I were to just come out and say I just plainly don't believe any religion and live life by own moral values and "belief system", I would deeply offend them (even though they are aware of this). It would basically be World War 3. Yet, they can say to me, "God is with her", "God is by her side". This actually deeply offends me (only recently, really) but somehow it's ok for them to say it but I could never say the opposite or what i really think.

I think, the perfect example of a double standard. The same is especially true of many muslims, if we do anything to offend their religion, (which is incredibly easy by the way) they lash out in pandemonium and then demand, 'tolerance.'

It is difficult as someone who believes in such a “factless” theory as Creation, that non believers are equally as offended. I get the “Have a Blessed Day”s can get annoying when you subscribe to science only. Or, in the case of loved ones who are truly sick and someone thinks the best thing to say to you is “She’ll be in a better place”.

One difference, at least among genuine Christians would be the sentiment with which it is delivered. Of course, there are a large number of times “Christians” use it cynically or damn others joyfully to hell – I’m not defending them. Ironman specifically, I read your comments about religion (or those who would believe such a “looney fantasy” ) and it comes off as mean spirited. Being told over and over again there is no rational reason (except some “innate need for comfort for those too weak to deal with life”) seems insulting, ya? If I kept posting statistics on the percentage of crimes committed by non-whites, wouldn’t I look racist? Saying what you believe to be the truth can still be hurtful.

Finally, you quite often assert that what you say “is truth”. Of course we’re all big boys and girls and know the internet posting implies “imo”; but using the phrasing does add some bitterness to your assertions. And surely you see the difference in tone between say you and many other atheist on this board?

ETA: All quotes are mine, not actual things Ironman said, but may have and at least provide how it sounds to me when he posts.